Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:58): I rise to speak today on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026.We know that starting a family is a very big decision. It brings feelings of joy and excitement. It also brings a lot of change. There are medical appointments and check-ups, and your health become your biggest priority. That is why the Labor government is ensuring that Victorian families have the highest possible standard of health care. It is especially important for families using assisted reproductive treatments. Over 17,000 women annually rely on IVF or similar treatments to start their family. With two incidents of incorrect embryo transfers reported in mid-2025, something has got to change, because behind every one of those 17,000 cases is a person or a couple who have already been through so much. Some have tried to conceive for years and faced heartbreak along the way. I know many of my close friends have been in that very circumstance. All of those who are going through the efforts to conceive a child, particularly those who are using assisted reproductive technologies, deserve a system that they can trust completely, with no doubt at all. Last year a national review looked at how closely IVF and fertility treatments are regulated across Australia. We listened to what it found. Now the Victorian government, through this bill, is acting.

This bill strengthens Victoria’s system for the regulation of assisted reproductive technologies by doing something simple but important: it separates who can register as a provider from who is accredited to operate. By separating provider registration from provider accreditation, we are creating a pathway to restoring patient confidence in the system with transparency and security. Let me explain why this matters. At the moment registration and accreditation are tied together. If a clinic is accredited, it can keep operating almost automatically. However, under this bill that link is broken. Accreditation alone will not be enough. The government retains the ability to decide who can register and operate in Victoria. In practice, the secretary will assess every registration application and the minister will have the power to cancel registrations on serious grounds. Additionally, providers will need to renew their registration every three years. This makes sure standards do not slip through the cracks. When a Victorian family walks into a fertility clinic and puts their future, and the future of their family, in someone else’s hands, they should know that they are safe – no second-guessing, no fear of another life-changing mistake. This bill is designed so that the mistakes of mid-2025 do not happen again.

The bill makes a series of other changes across the health regulatory system, and I want to spend a bit of time going through those. It makes amendments to the Radiation Act 2005 to create an offence relating to the disposal of radiation sources and that will enable the secretary to require persons authorised to deal with the source to provide financial assurance for the management and disposal of that source. We have got to confront the reality of what happens to radioactive material once a business no longer needs it. We know that radioactive material does play an important role, particularly in the medical sciences and for the treatment of various conditions. But at the moment when a business will not safely dispose of a disused radiation source, the state often steps in. Businesses walk away while the community covers the cost. With this bill, failing to properly dispose of these radiation sources will be an offence, as it should be, and where deemed necessary, providers will need financial assurance in place before the disposal is required. The cost will no longer sit with the community. It will be sorted up-front by those who have created the risk themselves. It is not a dramatic amendment, but I think it is a change that the people in Victoria will find to be fair and reasonable. South Australia has already implemented it. New South Wales already does it. Financial assurance schemes are also well established in other sectors of the Victorian economy and broader regulatory system. Under the Environment Protection Act 2017, for example, the EPA is required to require and claim financial assurance to cover clean-up costs. The bill applies the same principle to radiation safety: that those who create or control risk should bear the cost of managing it. We are simply keeping Victoria up to the standards and keeping our communities safe.

The bill makes a couple of other changes, which although minor in the scheme of things are incredibly important for those who are affected. Firstly, we are strengthening the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 by addressing legionella bacteria. Most Victorians may know the word; however, few know it spreads through poorly maintained cooling towers, the ones that sit on top of office buildings and shopping centres across the state. When they are poorly managed, they put lives at risk. This bill makes sure whoever manages a cooling tower can be investigated if they breach the rules – no excuses, no gaps, just accountability. Secondly, we are making a small but important amendment update to the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003 so regulation keeps pace with clinical protocols.

Let us not forget what is at stake for health care here in Victoria. What we know is that the Liberal Party under the Leader of the Opposition is planning to make $40 billion in cuts to the Victorian budget. There is no doubt that when the Liberals sharpen the axe it falls on our healthcare system. Cuts are coming to health and cuts are coming to education under the Liberals and a Liberal and One Nation government. We know because of the precipitous decline in the Liberal Party’s polling that we have seen in the last six months under their current leader that the only way that Liberals can form government is with One Nation, and they are absolutely committed to making these sorts of cuts, hacking away at health care for Victorians. It means that the cuts will affect not only social infrastructure like hospitals and community health but also the staffing and the often-unseen work required to deliver the strong regulatory framework. We know that when the Liberals talk about cutting back-end staff what they are really talking about is hacking away at those who perform regulatory functions. It may not be an outwardly glamorous part of government, undertaking regulatory functions, particularly in the healthcare system, but those are the sorts of functions that keep Victorians safe.

When people stand up and decry unnecessary government red tape, often what they are referring to is the tireless work of regulators – including, for example, those that regulate the assisted reproductive technologies that this bill is dealing with. When people stand up and attack those regulators, they are attacking the systems that are put in place to keep Victorians safe, often implemented as a consequence of dangerous circumstances that have been allowed to get out of control. What you will see from the Liberal–One Nation government, should it come to power in November, is a big axe being taken to our Department of Health and to our Department of Education, particularly attacking those roles that do things like the regulatory assurances that are put forward in this bill to regulate assisted reproductive technology, to ensure that radioactive materials are safely handled, to ensure that the responsibilities that landowners hold with respect to their cooling tower systems are properly enforced and maintained.

That is what many of the hardworking staff that work in the Department of Health here in Victoria do on a daily basis, and they are the sorts of example that we see in this act, whether it is making sure that assisted reproductive technology providers are able to provide safe and secure services to those who are often in some of the most vulnerable moments of their adult life, seeking to conceive a child, or whether it is those who run businesses that require radioactive material, particularly in the nuclear medicine space, and ensure that the disposal of that radioactive material is done properly and pre-planned and not left at the last minute for the taxpayers to pick up – or those who have cooling towers. We know that many of the cooling towers that we have under operation in Victoria, which are governed by the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, have been poorly maintained and have led to circumstances where people have been put at risk of legionnaire’s disease. All of that is at risk if the Liberals and One Nation sharpen the axe and start hacking into services here in the state of Victoria.

The contrast is pretty clear, particularly on health, because what you have seen is a Labor government that has built 12 new public hospitals. The amazing new hospital at Footscray – I have been talking with my colleague and friend the member for Footscray Katie Hall about the enormous difference that that new hospital is making for not just her community but communities right across Melbourne’s western suburbs. Work is underway in Melton. Again, you cannot run into the member for Frankston Paul Edbrooke without him talking about how wonderful the new Peninsula University Hospital is in Frankston – the redevelopment of the Frankston hospital. Mr Edbrooke has been an enormous advocate for the people of Frankston and an enormous advocate for the Peninsula University Hospital.

What he advocated for has been delivered by Labor, and that is one brand new hospital, one of the 12 new public hospitals that we have built across the state. And we have upgraded dozens more. There have been dozens more upgrades to hospitals right across the state, including some in Southern Metropolitan Region, some very close to the part of the world that I grew up in. There is a brand new refurbishment of the outpatient facilities at Sandringham Hospital which has been recently undertaken. There are new cutting-edge treatment provisions that have been provided and infrastructure that has been provided at the Alfred hospital, which is obviously Melbourne’s major trauma hospital, and the operating theatres at the Moorabbin Hospital have been upgraded.

But it is not just those pieces of physical infrastructure that Labor has invested in, it is also the other services that we have invested in to help Victorians get the care that they need, when they need it, in a much more convenient form. The Victorian Virtual Emergency Department, a Labor initiative – at risk under the Liberals – has helped provide more services to Victorians and has helped to cut waiting times at hospitals. You can get advice from your home so you can make a decision whether there is a treatment that is available for you or whether you need to go and get further medical care from others. We have also pioneered the use of urgent care clinics here in Victoria under the state Labor government. There are several that the state is involved with. They are an idea that has been picked up and delivered around the country by the Albanese Labor government. Those urgent care clinics are fundamentally reshaping general practice and putting primary care, GP care, back in the hands of the community, back available to the community, where you just need your Medicare card and not your credit card if you need to see the doctor. It is a model of care for primary care pioneered here in Victoria by this Victorian Labor government and taken around the country by the Albanese Labor government. We have supported our workforce and employed 17,000 more nurses and midwives, and we have given them a big pay rise as well.

But all of that progress is at risk. The measures in this bill to improve the regulatory system, whether it be for assisted reproductive technologies, whether it be for the safe storage of radioactive materials or whether it be to make sure that our cooling towers are not making people sick, stand at risk if there is a Liberal–One Nation government sharpening the axe to make cuts to public services, which is exactly what they will do. We know the Liberals are going to cut health services here in the state of Victoria. They have done it before, and if they get the chance they will do it again. Well, Labor is not going to let them.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (15:13): It is a delight to stand and speak on this bill, because we know how important health care is to Victorians. If you do not have your health, you do not have anything. It is important to acknowledge that, because Labor governments, Labor members and Labor representatives have health in their DNA. We have been absolutely committed, decade after decade after decade, to investing in health infrastructure, to investing in the health workforce so that all Victorians can access the health care they need. At all stages of life it becomes so evident how important health care is. When we are younger, when we are a bit more bullet-proof, we do not realise how important health care is, but as we get older – as people have kids, as people age – the ability to be able to age in place, to be able to age with good services around us is so critically important. We have heard some of my Labor colleagues talk about the importance of respecting the pay and conditions of our nurses. Those who make up our healthcare system, whether it is those in our aged care or disability workforce or our mental health nurses, are such a massive workforce. People come in, and they go out to people and support them. The overlay with our education system ensures our kids at a young age are being met and seen and having any issues picked up.

Just on the workforce side of things, I was recently out with the regional worker accommodation housing program, which is such an incredible program, on two of the projects – one is at Leongatha, with about 26 rooms for aged care workers, and the other is opposite Bairnsdale regional hospital, with a similar number of rooms there. They ensure that the workforce can be there to care for the community and then take pressure off housing for the rest of the community. It is such a great project. I just wanted to mention that.

The Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026 aims to prevent or minimise the risk of harm to the health and safety of Victorians. Primarily it is about making life easier and safer for all Victorians, especially when it comes to starting a family. Our Labor government backs the hospitals and health care that Victorian families rely on. This means we will not back down from leading the changes our state needs to respond to the changing needs of the Victorian community across everything from assisted reproductive treatment to radiation safety. The bill seeks to amend the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008, the Radiation Act 2005 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. These amendments are directed at streamlining and strengthening registration and licensing requirements, with a view to keeping all Victorians safe and healthy across a number of important domains. In addition, a minor technical amendment will be made to the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003. While this amendment is minor, it will deliver an important clarification to this act that ensures regulation keeps pace with updates to clinical protocols.

The reforms outlined in the bill will be administered and enforced by the health regulator, a branch of the department established in early 2024 to consolidate regulatory functions and enable the department to adopt a more consistent, risk-based regulatory approach. It is important to thank the dedicated staff within the health regulator, who day in, day out work to protect Victorians from harm in a huge range of domains, from assisted reproductive treatment right through to pest control. These are valued members of the public service who ensure that the regulatory frameworks that underpin public health operate to the highest possible standard. Health regulation plays a key role in minimising or preventing risk of harm to the health or safety of Victorians. We can see that on display with this bill, which protects Victorians from the spread of legionella bacteria, ensures that radioactive material is disposed of safely and gives Victorians starting a family the confidence that their assisted reproductive treatment will be of the highest quality. Health regulation contributes to the vision of a Victoria free of the avoidable burden of disease and injury so that all Victorians can enjoy the highest attainable standards of health.

The amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 are targeted at ensuring that Victoria stands ready to implement the recommendations of the national Rapid Review of Assisted Reproductive Technology and In Vitro Fertilisation Regulation and Accreditation in Australia. An independent national accreditation framework for ART providers is being developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. That framework will ensure that our ART sector operates in a way that is safe and transparent, and this bill will ensure that Victoria stands ready to adopt this framework once finalised. On top of this, this bill will introduce a stronger registration framework so that, when an ART provider is registered in Victoria, Victorians can have confidence that all appropriate due diligence has been conducted on the organisation’s compliance history, finances and governance.

The amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 constitute a critical step in protecting Victorians from the spread of dangerous legionella bacteria. Legionella can cause legionnaire’s disease, a form of pneumonia that can be fatal. Unfortunately, cooling towers can be a key vector for the spread of legionella bacteria, which is why a strong regulatory framework is required to monitor them under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. These amendments will ensure that the person responsible for managing the cooling tower can be investigated for any breaches of regulation and that appropriate action can be taken quickly to remedy breaches. This will help contain, manage and prevent the spread of legionella bacteria going forward, a measure which all Victorians can support.

The bill also seeks to amend the Radiation Act 2005 in line with the National Directory for Radiation Protection. It will enable a financial surety scheme similar to legislation in place in South Australia and New South Wales to cover the cost of the disposal of radiation sources and create an offence related to the disposal of radiation sources. This is an important and proactive step. It will ensure that where a licence holder is for any reason unable to dispose of a disused radiation source safely and properly the health regulator can ensure that this disposal occurs and has appropriate funding available to do so.

Victorian families should have confidence that the fertility care they are receiving is to the highest possible standard, and that is exactly what this bill will help achieve. By amending the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 the government is making Victorian IVF clinics safer and more accountable. This follows a series of concerning and highly distressing incidents at private IVF providers. These incidents quite rightly resulted in increased public discussion about safety and quality in the sector, and governments across the country responded with a national rapid review in 2025, led by the Victorian Department of Health. The recommendations of that review were agreed to by health ministers in September 2025, and we are now taking action to implement them. The national rapid review looked at the regulation and accreditation of the assisted reproductive technology, ART, and IVF sector. It identified significant shortcomings in the current national system, including a lack of consistency across states. The rapid review recommended that state and territory regulatory authorities take a proactive, risk-based approach to compliance monitoring and that they should draw on a spectrum of enforcement tools to enable decisive, proportionate action that more effectively deters misconduct. That is exactly what these amendments will achieve and why the government is bringing them forward.

In addition to this, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care is developing a new accreditation framework for IVF providers that will ensure tougher scrutiny is required to obtain accreditation. The new accreditation framework will be independent, whereas the current framework is industry based. The amendments to the ART act in this bill will ensure the Victorian legislation and regulatory framework is ready to align with the national accreditation framework and standards as soon as they are finalised. Importantly, unlike the current system, the changes brought about by these amendments will mean registration is no longer directly linked to accreditation. They allow government, through the Department of Health, to act independently from the accreditation scheme in making decisions on a provider’s registration status and authority to operate in Victoria. Under the current registration provisions the secretary has no discretion to refuse an application from a provider that has been accredited by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Further, while there is power to suspend registration of an accredited provider, there is no power to cancel that registration.

These aspects of the framework clearly require updating, and that is what this bill will achieve. The bill will give the secretary a full suite of discretionary powers to grant, renew, vary or refuse ART provider registration applications based on specified assessment criteria. This ensures that the decision about whether a provider has legal authority to operate in Victoria rests clearly with the regulator, as appropriate. The bill also introduces a power for the minister to cancel registration on specific grounds. The bill defers commencement of the offence of failure to comply with conditions of registration to allow the current conditions of registration to be reviewed and updated in alignment with upcoming new national accreditation standards before the offence applies. In the interim current conditions on registration continue to apply and a range of enforcement activities are available for noncompliance.

The amendments will also introduce a standard three-year registration period, with an option for this timeframe to be shorter if the department identifies any concerns or risks with a provider. This allows for more frequent and better compliance monitoring to make sure that Victorians can have ongoing confidence in the ART sector. A new power will also give the Minister for Health the discretion to intervene and cancel a provider’s registration. This reflects the seriousness of that regulatory action, and the health regulator will provide advice to the minister to support exercise of that power. Again, this ensures that Victorians know that any adverse incidents will be swiftly and appropriately responded to and gives families confidence that they will only receive the highest quality of care.

This registration framework is supported by broadened powers to enter a provider’s premises, inspect and seize equipment and documents. This reform builds on Victoria’s existing safeguards, including clear legal protections and oversight arrangements. Current provisions allow inspection only for the purpose of considering compliance by registered providers and are limited to inspection of documents during business hours. The updated powers in the bill provide for inspections of the premises of a registered ART provider or an applicant for registration to inform registration decisions or compliance monitoring and enforcement. They are also for inspection on the premises to inform registration decisions or compliance monitoring and enforcement. They also allow inspection of the premises beyond documentation where relevant. In addition, the bill introduces a process for application to the Magistrates’ Court for a warrant in relation to other premises not belonging to a registered provider or applicant for registration, where there is reason to believe ART is being carried out.

The rapid review found that the current industry-led accreditation scheme is inadequate and lacks the transparency and rigour that governments and the community expect. Ministers agree that the reforms offer a pathway to restore confidence, independence and transparency in the ART sector. The Gorton review of ART in Victoria similarly highlighted the importance for clearer separation between accreditation and regulatory oversight. The amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 in this bill will put Victoria in a position to effectively enable the agreed reforms and strengthen Victoria’s ability to uphold community expectations of the ART sector. In developing the bill, the Department of Health has worked closely with ART providers and sector stakeholders, as well as the commission and other jurisdictions. This engagement will continue as the recommendations of the rapid review are implemented, and consultation with providers will also continue over the coming months to ensure that changes are proportionate and responsive to the needs of the community.

Fundamentally, this bill ensures that our government is responsive to what we have heard clearly from Victorians right across the state, which is that they want to have confidence that the assisted reproductive treatment they receive is safe and high quality. In achieving this, Victorian families must have confidence that their IVF provider is held to the highest standards and that the facility care they are getting is subject to rigorous oversight. That is what these amendments will achieve.

The bill also proposes important reforms to Victoria’s public health framework by clarifying responsibility for the registration, management and maintenance of cooling tower systems. Cooling towers are often used for evaporative cooling in large buildings, including residential towers and big industrial or commercial sites. They are a recognised source of risk for the transmission of legionella bacteria, which can cause legionnaire’s disease, a potentially fatal form of pneumonia. Victoria regulates cooling tower systems to manage this public health risk. All cooling towers must be registered under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

I will leave my contribution there. It is important to note that this is one of many pieces of work being done by the Labor government across the health sector. As my colleague Mr Batchelor said, whether it is the new hospitals, whether it is the investment in our workforce and staff, whether it is the investment in worker accommodation right across our state, these investments ensure that all Victorians can receive the health care that they require, no matter where they live, and live the healthiest, most fulfilling lives possible. When they receive the health care that they need, it ensures that their life can be as full and long – with as much longevity, with quality of life in that longevity – as possible. And by offering that health care at all stages of people’s lives, it ensures that no matter whether it is our young children being born into new families or our older Victorians who are later in their life, they have all the incredible health services that they require in Victoria.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

I rise to make a short contribution on the Health Legislation (Regulatory Reform) Amendment 2026, on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria.

While assisted reproductive treatment has brought immense hope to thousands of Victorian families, it also relies on a foundation of trust and regulation.

This trust has been undermined by gaps within a sector – that was regulated by its own industry.

The Rapid Review made it clear that the current industry-led accreditation scheme was not enough.

When accreditation is largely left to the industry itself, there is an inherent risk that standards are applied inconsistently; conflicts of interest are not adequately managed, and poor practices are not addressed appropriately.

These gaps are not just breaches of professional or ethical stands.

I have long advocated for better outcomes for donor-conceived Victorians.

They have real and lasting consequences for donor-conceived people, recipient families and public confidence in Assisted Reproductive treatment.

I have previously raised concerns about the regulation of Assisted Reproductive Treatment and education programs.

I therefore welcome the Government taking the necessary steps to strengthen oversight over this sector, as well as improvements to the regulatory framework.

The primary purpose of regulation should be to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of donor-conceived people, recipient families and future generations.

This requires robust clinical oversight, comprehensive health screening, accurate medical records and clear accountability for those participating in the assisted reproductive system.

This needs to be a health-led approach, within what is now a lucrative and highly commercialised sector.

The Bill also introduces important reforms to strengthen the registration requirements for Victorian ART providers and expands the inspection powers of the Secretary of the Department of Health in their role as the regulator.

These are welcome and necessary reforms.

By strengthening oversight and improving regulatory powers, the Bill will help ensure that fertility clinics and providers operate to the highest standards of safety, quality and accountability.

At a time when more Victorians are relying on assisted reproductive treatment to build their families.

It is essential that the regulatory framework provides confidence that services are transparent, ethical and subject to robust oversight.

While most donors act ethically, there have been instances where individuals have deliberately exploited the system which was previously regulated by its own industry.

Another concern that I’ve seen is private sperm donation facilitated through social media and online platforms.

This raised ethical, legal and most importantly public health concerns amongst stakeholders and individuals that I have spoken to.

This happens outside of the regulated assisted reproductive treatment system and poses immense risks.

These arrangements bypass screening, counselling, informed consent requirements.

Most importantly, this can leave recipients and donor-conceived children without important safeguards and protections in place.

That is why oversight must remain firmly within the health portfolio.

A strong health regulatory framework is essential not only to uphold ethical standards, but to protect the health and wellbeing of current and future Victorians.

Legalise Cannabis Victoria is proud to support this Bill.

Thank you.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (15:29): It is a real pleasure to rise to speak today on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2026. I want to start by taking this opportunity to thank all members who have contributed to this debate and everybody who has contributed to the preparation of the bill, which underpins some of the founding principles around responsible management of workforce need, directing resources to keeping Victorians healthy and well, making sure we can provide better access to assisted reproductive treatment (ART), preventing the spread of legionella and also the effectively managing disused radioactive material. These are just some of the reforms that are being directed toward making sure that we can contribute to the vision of a Victoria that is free from the burden of avoidable disease and injury so that Victorians can enjoy the highest attainable standards of health, because that is fundamentally what they – what we – deserve. I am not going to traverse all of the detail in the bill, because I suspect we will be in a position to talk about that in the course of the committee, but I do want to say that all staff in the health system, whether frontline or back of house, play a really critical role in minimising and preventing risk of harm to the health and safety of Victorians. I also want to say a special thanks to staff at the regulator for all of the work that they do.

We have got some amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008. These reforms, as we announced earlier this year, are reforms which I look forward to focusing on in the course of the committee discussion but also that I want to make reference to today in these remarks as contributing to a greater measure of certainty, of consistency, of safety and of respect across the entire landscape of treatment in assisted reproductive technology services. Here in Victoria we want to make sure that our IVF clinics are safe and that they are more accountable. We are really proud to be leading this reform. And as I said when I spoke on this bill as it was being introduced in the other place, we want to make sure that we are adopting and adapting the changes – reforming the system – following concerning incidents that have come to light involving mistaken embryo transfers. I can only begin to imagine the trauma and distress experienced by those families who were impacted by those mistaken embryo transfers, but it is incumbent upon us within this place and across parliaments around Australia to ensure that the need to rebuild trust and confidence in the sector is recognised, that it is given the sunlight that it deserves and that it translates into meaningful regulatory reform.

These reforms are in line with the Gorton review. This is about making sure that we have a clearer separation between accreditation and regulatory oversight. We know that the current industry-led framework is inadequate. It is no longer fit for purpose in the way that it was anticipated or proposed when it was first developed, and it lacks the transparency and the rigour that governments and the community quite rightly and reasonably expect. Ministers around Australia agreed that these reforms create a significant pathway, a useful pathway, for better delivery of national accreditation frameworks and the restoration of confidence, independence and also transparency.

The changes that we have made will ensure that we decouple registration from accreditation. This will strengthen the regulatory scheme. It will also ensure that we have got discretionary powers within the remit of the Secretary of the Department of Health and the Minister for Health around registration decisions that are intended to ensure that the decision about whether a provider has legal authority to operate in Victoria rests clearly with the regulator, as it should. This will be coupled with enhanced inspection powers for the secretary of the department to ensure that registration decisions, alongside compliance, monitoring and enforcement, are informed by a full and comprehensive body of evidence. We have also got a process in this bill which refers to the Magistrates’ Court for warrants in relation to other premises that do not belong to an ART provider or applicant where there is a reason to believe that ART may be being carried out.

The development of this bill has been informed by discussion and engagement with ART providers, sector stakeholders as well as the commission and other jurisdictions, and in the course of development around the implementation we will continue to have these conversations. It is refinement that will occur over time, again, as these reforms are processed and proceed following passage – hopefully, and with the support of this place – of the bill into law. We have also got some really significant amendments to the public health framework. The maintenance, registration, management and support for cooling tower systems under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 is also part of what we will be debating and, with the support of the chamber, passing today.

We want to make sure that we are addressing, mitigating and removing or reducing the risk of the spread of legionella bacteria that can cause really dangerous legionnaire’s disease, has received a number of public discussions and has resulted in the airing of some really significant shortcomings in the system. These proposed amendments will actually require the responsible person – defined as the person who owns, manages or controls a cooling tower system – to assume obligations such as registration, development and review of a risk management plan and annual audits. By making responsibility explicit the bill reduces that uncertainty for industry that might otherwise have arisen. It improves compliance, and it ensures that we can support timely regulatory intervention where those risks arise. This will contribute, in turn, to safer buildings and better protection for Victorians from preventable disease.

Many others have spoken about amendments to the Radiation Act 2005 here today too, and this is about strengthening the radiation safety framework. Radioactive sources, as we know – and as we have spoken about in this place on a number of occasions, including recently – are used safely across Victoria in health care, research and industry, and significant public benefit is delivered as a result. But once a source becomes disused, there is no ongoing justification for its continued possession. We know that unmanaged or abandoned sources pose risks to human health and to the environment. While existing licence conditions require disposal in some cases, the government is required to intervene to manage or store disused sources. That is why the proposed amendments in this bill introduce the financial surety regime. It is about making sure that licence holders make adequate provision for the safe and lawful disposal of radioactive sources when they are no longer fit for an authorised purpose.

There is a key provision of the National Directory for Radiation Protectionthat is implemented, and that comes as a consequence of this engagement, this bill and Victoria being a party to that directory. The amendments proposed here would then bring us into line with other jurisdictions and enable the Secretary of the Department of Health to require financial surety where appropriate when granting or renewing a radiation management licence. It would also ensure that risk-based approaches and proportionate components of this framework strengthen those existing licence obligations. Disposal protocols are also part of this work and are to be issued by the secretary, introducing offences for noncompliance and ensuring the framework is effective and enforceable. Finally, amendments to the Non-Emergency Patient Transport and First Aid Services Act 2003 will enable documents such as clinical protocols to be included in regulations as they are made and in force from time to time.

In these remarks, though, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the really hard work of my friend in the other place, the former Minister for Health Mary-Anne Thomas, and also her team, alongside the really hardworking staff in the department. This has been a process that has culminated in better regulation and better reflection of the priorities that Victorians should be allowed to rely upon and should be encouraged to rely upon and that governments should be delivering. It is about making life safer for Victorians. It is about minimising and preventing the risk of harm across a wide range of domains.

I am particularly proud of this bill’s action to ensure that families can have confidence in the fertility care that they receive. It is so often the dream of a lifetime to welcome a much-loved and much-wanted baby into the world. The level of trust and vulnerability that people put in the assisted reproductive technology (ART) sector and in the providers to realise that dream ought to never be ignored or diminished. It ought to never be vulnerable to compromise in any way, shape or form. The national rapid review demonstrated the critical nature of these reforms, and I know that they are welcomed by families across our state and also by many in this chamber. I note also that this will hopefully give comfort to people who have been concerned about the way in which they can be confident to place their trust in ART providers. Hopefully people will not be dissuaded given the way where often when the clock ticks time pressures become ever more acute around the window to try for a child or to have a child using assisted reproductive technology and that this will restore a measure of faith and trust in a system that is, at its best, able to deliver the most wonderful of things: the certainty and the surety, the accountability and the end result, through ART, of those hundreds of babies who are born here in Victoria, including through our public IVF program – those hundreds and thousands of babies welcomed into the world as a result of all of our efforts, cutting-edge technology, a skilled workforce and the supports and the assistance provided here in Victoria and elsewhere to make people’s dreams of a family come true.

I am looking forward to debate and discussion and any questions that may come up in the course of the committee stage, but I would commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (15:42)

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I believe this is going to be your last committee stage in health; I will miss our sparring across the chamber. I need some clarification on this important bill. I have got a few clauses that I will go to, but I will just start with ART in clause 1 just as a general one. In the response from your office to questions taken on notice in the bill briefing, it is stated that:

The Department will continue engagement with key stakeholders to further build understanding of the proposed ART reforms and seek input on implementation.

What will this continuing engagement look like? What opportunities will stakeholders, those in the sector, have to be able to have input into that consultation really in relation to the transition, because this duplicate system is occurring as the transition occurs – what input and how often will that occur, that stakeholder feedback?

Harriet SHING: I do not think of it as sparring so much as constructive engagement on the democratic process.

A member interjected.

Harriet SHING: Thank you. That is very kind. I look forward to you maybe putting that on the record when the microphone is on. We will have ongoing consultation, including with fertility specialists, so obstetricians and gynaecologists, around implementation of the bill to ensure that it is practical and also clinically informed. There will be ongoing discussion and engagement to communicate and support smooth implementation of the bill. The health regulator is really determined to make sure that we have that workforce capability in operational practices that minimises risk of adverse impact to clinical care or patient privacy that might be associated with exercise of those regulatory powers. Again, that goes right to the heart of some of the issues that were identified and that led to the review and this bill in the first place.

We need to make sure that we do have expert input into the way that the detailed design of quality and safety requirements imposed on providers is developed. We are also expecting that national fertility specialists will participate in a national consultation that is currently underway as well. So these things really very much do need to sit alongside each other in informing the new accreditation scheme. As I said in my remarks, it is about making sure that it is aligned with what is happening in other jurisdictions, that we have standards that are not at odds with each other and that we can consult with relevant experts on those future reforms and make sure that they are aligned with regulatory requirements and also the objectives of the bill, which everybody knows in respect of this subject matter, is very clearly about making sure that we do not see instances as they occurred in the past happening again.

Georgie CROZIER: Can I just expand a little bit on that. Obviously there are different ART providers, some very large and some smaller providers. The expanded registration requirements may impose a significantly higher compliance burden for some, particularly those smaller fertility providers that do not have the same administrative processes or resources that the large ones do. How will the regulator ensure that smaller providers are not disproportionately affected by the increased compliance requirements? Will there be some assistance from the department, or will there be additional timeframes to be able to meet compliance requirements, or do you see it as an expectation and it will not be as burdensome as perhaps some may think?

Harriet SHING: Back to the first principles and the primary purpose of this bill, we do need to make sure that the accreditation processes yield results that reflect the same high benchmarks for everybody. Again, that is about outcomes that deliver uniformly exemplary systems in the way in which ART is able to be delivered. We also, in doing this, need to make sure that through valid accreditation and transitional periods we have got the delivery of Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC) licences through accreditation under the commission’s scheme, making sure that we are not assuming or pre-empting any of the details of new accreditation work or standards or arrangements.

The consultation process that we undertook was very much about hearing from providers around what the impact would look like. In consulting with those ART providers there were a number of duplicate webinars to talk with them about what it would look like, and that included for large and small providers, and a survey to ask really targeted questions about potential concerns and anticipated impacts. Consultation really did underscore the importance of very clear and coordinated communication about accreditation reforms in Victoria – timeframes, transitional arrangements, timely communication about implementation. That included registration fees, for example, and those other arrangements around implementation. The department will keep working with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) to ensure that we have got coordination on design and implementation of those two schemes and related communication to providers. Peak bodies are also really important in this space as well. They are in a position to provide support to those smaller providers in a way that will hopefully reduce the administrative burden on those smaller providers and the gap that will exist between the scale of the very large providers on one hand to be able to work through complex system reform and the smaller ones that will also be required to deliver it, albeit perhaps without the resources.

We will continue engagement, though, with key stakeholders and make sure that we have got that collective understanding of the proposed reforms and a process that informs better engagement and delivers better results through that implementation. But I do appreciate the concern that smaller providers might have. I also, again, finish where I started and note that everyone should expect and will have the right to expect the high benchmark as a consequence of passage of this bill, to give them the confidence that has been missing.

Gaelle Broad: Excuse me, Deputy President, I would just like to draw your attention to the state of the house at the moment, if we have quorum.

Quorum formed.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I will just continue on clause 1 with the issues that I was speaking on in relation to the ART component of the bill. I will reference clause 16. It talks about the expanded inspection powers which allow inspectors to enter premises at any time and examine, photograph or take recordings of anything. This was previously done during business hours. What safeguards will ensure the protection of biological material and embryos as well as sensitive laboratory equipment if these inspections are done after hours when maybe there are not as many personnel present?

Harriet SHING: This is about fragile biological material, then. At the moment section 119 of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 enables inspection of documents at the premises of a registered provider during business hours. In making sure, as you have quite rightly pointed out, that we can support the full cycle of registration decisions and compliance monitoring provided for in the act, we do want to make sure that we are aligning those inspection powers with the operation of those powers in other jurisdictions and health regulation legislation. Patients’ privacy would continue to be protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in the way in which it is managed and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and broader privacy obligations under health privacy laws. The charter requires public authorities and persons acting on their behalf, including the secretary or their delegate, to act compatibly with human rights, including the right in section 13(a) not to have privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. In practice the secretary or delegate would seek to avoid recording or photographing patients when exercising inspection powers at an ART clinic unless it was reasonably necessary for the purpose of the inspection and make sure that if material obtained during an inspection includes patient information, that it would not be automatically released under FOI. The FOI act contains those exemptions for personal and health information, as you are aware, where disclosure would be unreasonable. It is not intended, though, just to be clear, that inspectors will seize gametes or embryos or impact upon laboratory operations.

Georgie CROZIER: But it can be after hours.

Harriet SHING: Yes. Just to be really clear, though – and I think it is an important thing to allay any concerns in the course of this committee stage that might otherwise have arisen – inspectors will not be seizing gametes or embryos or impacting upon lab operations. As currently, inspection planning will be informed by industry practice and where appropriate will have engagement with ART providers to guard against risk of harm to inspectors, patients, gametes or embryos. Local occupational health and safety and patient consent processes are taken into account. That has been the case in inspections under current provisions that included laboratory areas, and local governance arrangements for protection of gametes and embryos have been observed.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you, Minister, for that reassurance and clarity. If I can just move to a question around the transitional provisions which allow the secretary to approve two concurrent schemes immediately after the commencement of the bill, recognising that some providers will remain RTAC accredited while others might be accredited to the ACSQHC scheme – that duplication we were talking about earlier. Given that the requirements of the new ACSQHC-aligned scheme have not yet been published, how can providers assess compliance obligations and costs before the bill commences?

Harriet SHING: Providers will transition directly from RTAC accreditation to accreditation under the new national scheme. The current and upcoming schemes could both be approved by the secretary during any national transition period once the commission’s new scheme is finalised to allow for ART providers to prepare for the new national scheme while maintaining their existing registrations. They would need to ensure that they continuously hold a valid accreditation, and during any national transition period for accreditation they will be able to satisfy that requirement either through an RTAC licence or through accreditation under the commission’s scheme. Again, that speaks to what the process is intended to be by way of something which is not prohibitively onerous whilst also achieving the objectives for which this is being established.

The amendments in the bill, though, do not assume or pre-empt any details of the new accreditation standards or accreditation arrangements. They make necessary changes to the Victorian legislation so that the new accreditation scheme can be adopted in Victoria in line with the national rollout. The act will require providers to comply with an accreditation scheme approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health without naming that scheme in legislation.

Georgie CROZIER: Just on that point, with the accreditation they are currently under, will those protections remain in place while it is being transferred across?

Harriet SHING: The answer to that is yes.

Sarah MANSFIELD: During the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Regulatory Reform) Bill 2024 I asked Minister Stitt when the recommendations of the Gorton review to remove the requirement for mandatory counselling for anyone accessing ART would be implemented. The minister’s response at that time was that the government would consult further with stakeholders on this. I am just wondering what consultation the government has undertaken with stakeholders since then.

Harriet SHING: There has been a phased approach to addressing the recommendations of the review. Our current reform focus is about actioning the identified priority 1, phase 1 reforms that arose from the rapid review in 2025. During consultation on other changes to the act the department heard some stakeholder feedback around the mandatory counselling associated with treatment and donation, including a desire that it be more fit for purpose for diverse families. We note that the rapid review heard some pretty significant consumer feedback that urged improvement in the information and counselling provided during treatment. We would expect that the national consumer engagement commissioned work following the rapid review will also inform those future decisions on regulatory requirements relating to counselling. Does that assist?

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think you touched on it, but at the time I also asked specifically when the government plans to remove the requirement under section 40, subsection (1)(a), of the ART act that same-sex couples trying to access surrogacy have to prove that they are unable to become pregnant. The minister said there will be further consideration and consultation around that question. I am just wondering what consideration the government has given to remove what is seen by many as quite a demeaning requirement.

Harriet SHING: Thank you, Dr Mansfield, for that. There are some issues around whether this falls slightly outside the scope of this bill, given that it was something contemplated as part of other review work. What I might do in terms of assisting with your question is see if we can provide you with some information on the work that has been undertaken to date. That is sort of operational and aligned probably more appropriately with the work that you discussed with Minister Stitt, and that is going through on that tranche. So I am not seeking to not provide you with any information that I have to hand. Let us see what we can get you to provide you with some information about that.

In particular, same-sex couples activating and accessing ART is a matter that is very dear to my heart, and it is something which I think has led to some really significant reforms, particularly around the definitions of infertility and the way in which services could or could not be provided. That often caused an awful lot of upset and so much distress, and we see that there have been some real leaders in the field who have pushed very hard to make sure that those barriers were removed, in particular around the way in which infertility has been defined.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (16:02)

Georgie CROZIER: Just in relation to non-emergency patient transport (NEPT), Minister, in clause 21, ‘incorporate by reference any matter in any document’, who decides what documents are incorporated?

Harriet SHING: This is a reform that adapts and, well, incorporates an approach taken in a number of other laws, and that includes section 132A of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, designed to ensure the uninterrupted operation of the legislation, which is, as we all agree, critical in health outcomes and delivering those outcomes safely. It is best practice, and it would be the expectation of stakeholders that there be a mechanism to ensure that technical documents referenced in the regulations can be reviewed and updated and used efficiently to ensure they remain fit for purpose and reflect current clinical and industry practice. As we all know, clinical and industry practice is not a static thing, so we do need to make sure that that is capable of being reflected without the need for constant legislative change or consideration. In order for a document to be referenced dynamically in the NEPT regulations as proposed, the regulation-making process must be completed in accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 and its consultation and impact assessments requirements. So this proposed regulation-making power does not allow documents to be incorporated into regulations at will or unilaterally by the department.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you for that clarification, because you have answered one other question that I had, but what safeguards are there to ensure transparency and accountability to providers when all these documents – all these guidelines, all the technical docs, as you described – if they are identified, are incorporated? What is the process? What is the mechanism for that transparency from the department to the providers?

Harriet SHING: I think that has probably been covered off in the answer that I have given you as far as the way in which regulation-making processes occur. Do you want to perhaps flesh that out a little more?

Georgie CROZIER: When the regulation is done – obviously we understand that process. It is just to safeguard those providers when they are dealing with regulations or understanding what is happening. The department would automatically give them updates. Is that the safeguard that is in place so that they are protected – not a random document being uploaded? It sort of reads that way.

Harriet SHING: No, that is the governing framework here. That is about providing those safeguards.

Clause agreed to; clauses 22 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (16:06)

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, was the Radiation Advisory Committee consulted in relation to this legislation?

Harriet SHING: The Radiation Advisory Committee will be consulted in the development of the protocols as part of implementation. That is about making sure that in operationalising these changes, they are done as part of that consultative process with the RAC.

Georgie CROZIER: The 2024–25 annual report from the Radiation Advisory Committee states that:

Neither the Minister for Health nor the Secretary of the Department of Health referred any matter to the Committee for advice in the 2024–2025 financial year and the Committee did not meet in this period.

Has it met during the current financial year? If you were proposing this legislation, what was the reason for not meeting or discussing with that particular committee?

Harriet SHING: That is a very good question. Let me find out.

The committee has met, but yes, that was actually then about building on the commitment that ministers had made back in 2021, in any event, to agree.

Georgie CROZIER: You might have to relook at the annual report. Clause 34 speaks of the definition of ‘disposal’, and the explanatory memorandum clarifies that:

… in addition to the ordinary English meaning of disposal, disposal in relation to a radiation source includes relocation of a radiation source outside of Victoria …

In some feedback that I requested from the Australian Nuclear Association, just getting their points of view, I got some excellent feedback, and they were largely very comfortable with the bill and what it was proposing. However, in relation to clause 34, they said to me:

‘Disposal’ is commonly used in Australia to mean transfer of ownership or responsibility …

sometimes outside or across jurisdictions.

However it is probably not helpful to conflate terminology. Movement of radioactive material and waste across borders needs to be better tracked, and the forthcoming Code for Radioactive Waste Management may introduce more consistent requirements. It would be good to distinguish transfer of regulatory and licensee responsibilities from ‘burying waste’.

So they are saying burying waste is one form of disposal. So they are saying burying waste was one form of disposal and transfer was another. Was there a reason, or is that something that the government considered around that distinguishing component, the transfer and the responsibilities?

Harriet SHING: The disposal protocols will be developed after passage of this bill. This is something which stakeholders had asked for in the course of consultation, so the next step as part of the development of those protocols will occur once that framework exists within the bill as passed.

Clause agreed to; clauses 35 to 43 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (16:12): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (16:12): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

In doing so, I want to thank everybody who has provided contributions to the development of this bill. In particular I acknowledge the people who have spoken about their experiences with ART providers, for better or for worse, and the work that has informed this bill as part of nationwide conversations that need to make sure that what has happened before never happens again, that the experiences of mistaken embryo transfers are something which we can and do learn from and that where risk is identified, as we have done here, it is managed and people get the outcomes that they want with trust and confidence in the system because of these better measures of accountability and transparency. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will now be returned to the Legislative Assembly telling them that the Legislative Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.